RICR Septembre IRRC September 2003 Vol. 85 No 851 497 Remedies for victims of violations of international humanitarian law LIESBETH ZEGVELD* International humanitarian law (“IHL”) has never been confined to the level of relations between States.1 On the contrary, the initiators of the nineteenth century conventions already believed that human persons had inviolable rights even during armed conflicts.2 However, recognition of rights is one thing, the right to claim those rights is another. So far, States have been reluctant to entitle, explicitly and in general, victims of violations of international humanitarian law to claim reparation. As humanitarian law treaties do not expressly envisage causes of action for victims in national or international law, they are hardly able to exercise their rights. On this point international humanitarian law sharply contrasts with tendencies in international law. In spite of the gap in the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility, which were finally adopted in 20013 but fail to mention rights of individuals in the regime of secondary rights,4 it is generally known that human rights treaties provide a remedy, both substantive and procedural, for individuals suffering injury from unlaw- ful conduct by State authorities. For example, Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights stipulates that individuals whose rights as set forth in that Convention are violated shall have “an effective remedy before a national authority”. And Article 50 of the same Convention mandates the European Court of Human Rights to afford just satisfaction to victims. Human rights treaties also provide for specific provisions on compensation, for example to victims of unlawful arrest or detention.5 Most recently, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court6 authorizes the Court to determine any damage, loss or injury to victims and order reparations to them. * Liesbeth Zegveld, Ph.D. practises as an international lawyer in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. She would like to thank Frits Kalshoven for his useful comments and Gijs Kuijper for his assistance in preparing this article. 498 Remedies for victims of violations of international humanitarian law While the punishment of individuals for war crimes has received much greater attention over the past decade, shifting some inter-State aspects of IHL to individual criminal responsibility, the position of the victims of these crimes has not been equally addressed. Their rights and interests have largely been overlooked. Yet redress and reparation for victims of violations of IHL is an imperative demand of justice. The relevance of rights under IHL is questionable if victims have no legal capacity to enforce their rights, before either a national or an international tribunal, once they claim to have become a victim. As pointed out by Lord Denning: “a right without a remedy is no right at all”.7 The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has recognized the interests of victims of IHL violations. The “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparations for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law” (hereinafter “UN Principles on the Right to a Remedy”), adopted by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at its 56th session in 2000,8 aim to provide 1 As one commentator put it, the purpose of international humanitarian law is to go “beyond the inter- state levels and [to reach] for the level of the real (or ultimate) beneficiaries of humanitarian protection, i.e. individuals and groups of individuals”, G. Abi-Saab, “The specificities of humanitarian law”, in C. Swinarski (ed.), Studies and Essays of International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles in Honour of Jean Pictet, ICRC, Geneva/The Hague, 1984, p. 269; similarly, T. Meron, “The humanization of humanitarian law”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 94, 2000, pp. 239-278. 2 J. Pictet (ed.), Commentary: IV Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, ICRC, Geneva, 1958, reprinted 1994, p. 77. 3 International Law Commission Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted on second reading by the International Law Commission (“ILC”) at its 53rd Session (UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.569, 9 August 2001) and by the General Assembly on 12 December 2001, Res. 56/83, text available at <http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/rcil/ILCSR/Statresp.htm>. 4 Art. 33(2) of these Articles, Ibid., contains a saving clause, stipulating that the Articles are “without prejudice to any right, arising from the international responsibility of a State, which may accrue directly to any person or entity other than a State”. This provision underlines that the Articles do not deal with the pos- sibility of the invocation of responsibility by persons or entities other than States; it merely recognizes the possibility that individuals may be entitled to claim reparation for violations of primary norms of interna- tional humanitarian law by States. See J. Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002, p. 210. 5 See for example Art. 5(9) of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights of 1969. 6 Of 17 July 1998, UN doc. A/CONF.183/9, Art. 75. 7 Lord Denning in Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers, AC, 1978, p. 435, cited in R. Higgins, “The role of domestic courts in the enforcement of international human rights: The United Kingdom”, in B. Conforti and F. Franciani (eds.), Enforcing International Human Rights in Domestic Courts, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, 1997, p. 38. 8 E/CN.4/2000/62, 18 January 2000. Pursuant to its resolution 1989/13, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities entrusted Mr. Theo van Boven with the task of RICR Septembre IRRC September 2003 Vol. 85 No 851 499 victims of violations of human rights and IHL with a right to a remedy. The content of this right includes access to justice, reparation for harm suffered and access to factual information concerning the violations.9 It distinguishes between five forms of reparation: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition.10 These UN Principles have been corroborated by several other initia- tives. In 1998, in the Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice, the Hague Appeal for Peace and Justice for the 21st Century defined implementation of IHL as its overriding theme and made the following recommendation: “The Hague Appeal will advocate changes in the development and implementation of the laws in both these fields [IHL and human rights law], in order to close critical gaps in protection and to harmonize these vital areas in international law”.11 In 2003, building on these initiatives, the Amsterdam Centre for International Law (“ACIL”) of the University of Amsterdam and the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights of the University of Utrecht organized two expert meetings to discuss the need for and feasibility of new procedures that provide reme- dies for victims of violations of IHL. The meeting in May 2003 discussed whether existing international mechanisms can provide victims of violations of international humanitarian law with a remedy and provide reparation. On the basis of its findings, the follow-up meeting in October 2003 will examine different options for filling gaps in existing procedures or for developing new undertaking a study concerning the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of human rights and fundamental freedoms (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/8). Mr. Theo van Boven prepared three versions of the basic principles and guidelines on the right to reparation for victims. The first version is found in docu- ment E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/8 of 2 July 1993, section IX. The second version is found in document E/CN.4/Sub.2/1996/17 of 24 May 1996. The third version is found in document E/CN.4/1997/104 of 16 January 1997. The Commission on Human Rights, in its resolution 1996/35, regarded the proposed draft basic principles elaborated by Mr. Theo van Boven as a useful basis for giving priority to the question of restitution, compensation and rehabilitation; in resolution 1998/43, it requested its Chairman to appoint an independent expert to prepare a revised version of the basic principles and guidelines elaborated by Mr. Theo van Boven with a view to their adoption by the General Assembly. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of resolution 1998/43, the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights appointed Mr. M. Cherif Bassiouni to perform this task. These Principles were preceded by the Declaration of Basic Principles for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, adopted by General Assembly resolution 40/34 on 29 November 1985. Attention is also drawn to the resolu- tion adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 28 September 1977, which aimed at harmonizing national laws in the field of compensation for victims of crime, Resolution (77) 27, adopted during its 275th meeting. 9 Principle 11, UN Principles on the Right to a Remedy, op. cit. (note 8). 10 Principle 21, ibid. 11 Recommendation 13, The Agenda for Peace, UN Doc. A/54/98. 500 Remedies for victims of violations of international humanitarian law procedures. Lastly, the International Law Association (“ILA”) recently initi- ated a project on “compensation for the victims of war”.12 Noting that civil- ians are left without any remedy if they are killed or wounded or suffer property or other losses, the project aims “to systematically review the law of war and human rights with a view to focusing on the rights of victims of war to com- pensation”. The proposed project has as its goal the preparation and adoption of a Draft Declaration of International Law Principles on Compensation to Victims of War.13 Against the background of the above ideas and proposals, the present paper examines the legal ways and means currently available under domestic and international law to victims of violations of IHL to have their primary rights respected.14 It explores whether victims have the right to a remedy and the extent to which this right can be enforced, if at all.